BEXHILL TOWN FORUM

21 September 2010

Minutes of the meeting of the Bexhill Town Forum held at the De La Warr Pavilion, Bexhill on Tuesday 21 September 2010 at 6.30 pm.

The Chairman, Paul Plim, welcomed members to the Bexhill Town Forum at the De La Warr Pavilion and warmly thanked Hastings Local for their continued support in generously funding the Forum venue.

TF578. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN

Nominations were invited for Chairman for 2010/2011. Mr Paul Plim was proposed. This was seconded and carried and Mr Plim took the Chair.

The Chairman then invited nominations for Vice-Chairman for 2010/2011. Conor Hill, Chairman of the Bexhill Youth Council was proposed. This was seconded and carried.

TF579. MINUTES

The Chairman was authorised to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Bexhill Town Forum held on 22 June 2010, as a correct record of the proceedings.

TF580. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Derek Stevens (Chief Executive, Rother District Council), Tony Leonard (Director of Services, Rother District Council), District Councillors Tony Ganly, Mrs Deirdre Williams and Stuart Wood, Sean O’Brien, (former Vice Chairman of the Bexhill Town Forum), Dorothy Smith (Age Concern), Don Butler (Beulah Baptist Church), Jan Cutting (East Sussex Link), Michael Gebbie (Rother Seniors), Christine Madeley (League of Friends of Bexhill Hospital) and Sandra Melvin (Bexhill in Bloom).

TF581. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

The Chairman advised the Forum that following a publicity drive to recruit new members to the Executive Committee (EC), a number of people had come forward.

These individuals had been invited to attend a meeting of the EC on 6 September

and as a result the Chairman proposed that the following persons be co-opted onto the Committee: Jackie Bialeska, Trudy Hillman, Phil Lee and Martin Turner. This proposal was seconded and carried.

It was the intention of the existing members, namely, Roger Gillett and Dave Dickens-Smith to serve a further term. These members, together with Sally Vennard, who had recently come onto the EC, Conor Hill, Chairman of the Bexhill Youth Council, Martin Fisher, co-opted member of Rother Voluntary Action and Councillor Mrs Joy Hughes, the Council’s appointed representative, now made up a full complement of the Executive Committee to the Bexhill Town Forum.

Positive feedback had been received after the last meeting on the change of format for the Forum and the theme chosen for this evening was Local Government Finance. It was intended to open up the Forum to everyone to participate in a more constructive way focusing on pertinent issues in the town and overseeing the work of the Bexhill Action Plans.

RESOLVED: That the proposal to co-opt the following individuals onto the Executive Committee be approved: Jackie Bialeska, Trudy Hillman, Phil Lee and Martin Turner.

TF582. CONSTITUTION – MAKING THE MOST OF MEETINGS

Recent changes in the opening up of the membership of the Forum had necessitated re-writing the “Making the Most of Meetings” leaflet, in an attempt to clarify matters concerned with the terms of reference for the Forum. The Chairman asked members for their approval in passing responsibility for constitutional matters relating to the Bexhill Town Forum to the EC.

Concerns were raised that the meeting could be taken over on particular issues and Margaret Jones reiterated her proposal at a previous meeting that the new changes be implemented for a trial period of one year. The Chairman felt it should be the responsibility of the EC to deal with matters of a constitutional nature on behalf of the Forum rather than taking up valuable time within Forum meetings.

After further discussion it was suggested that the EC should fully discuss all constitutional matters and then bring them back to the Forum for ratification.

RESOLVED: That the Executive Committee formulate proposals on constitutional matters to be presented at the November Forum meeting.

CONOR HILL IN THE CHAIR

TF583. PRESENTATION – ROYAL MAIL

The Vice-Chairman, Conor Hill welcomed Mr Peter Sinnett, Divisional Representative of the Royal Mail and Communication Workers Union to the Meeting.

The Vice-Chairman presented the following motion to be considered by the Forum:

“That the Bexhill Town Forum agrees Royal Mail provides a vital public service to our communities, both rural and urban alike. The Bexhill Town Forum is extremely concerned that the coalition Government intends to bring forward legislation to break up and privatise Royal Mail. We are convinced that this will lead to widespread closure of Post Offices, will jeopardise the ‘one price goes anywhere’ universal service and will lead to increased prices and a deterioration of services to small businesses, domestic customers, vulnerable groups and communities. There is no public mandate for the privatisation of Royal Mail and there is no public support for such a move. In light of the above, the Bexhill Town Forum commits to opposing plans to break up and privatise Royal Mail and to support the ‘Keep the Post Public Coalition’”.

Proposals against the motion were invited from the Vice-Chairman.

Strong concerns were voiced by members with this item being placed on the Agenda. Margaret Jones indicated that she agreed with the first sentence that ‘the Royal Mail provides a vital public service to our communities’, but was extremely concerned about this issue being brought to the Town Forum as she felt it was a national issue and not a Bexhill issue. It was a very complicated issue with an £800 billion pound pension deficit and the postal service running at a loss, but it was questionable that this would lead to the widespread closure of post offices. Margaret did not feel it was an appropriate or suitable motion for this Forum.

Ken Hutchinson proposed consideration being given to voting on an amended motion, making it more personal to the Forum. He suggested that the motion be postponed to the next meeting to enable amendments to be made.

Paul Plim, speaking as a communications worker for Bexhill, advised that the Making the Most of Meetings leaflet stated the Forum was entitled to discuss national services that affected Bexhill and members of the public in Bexhill had a right to say they were concerned.

Councillor Maynard advised that the Forum had never been seen to be political and that he considered party politics should be kept out of the Town Forum. He criticised the motion being placed on the Agenda and warned against politicising the Town Forum. He conceded that it was a matter for Bexhill residents, but warned that to go down the route of political debate was very dangerous and reiterated that party politics should be kept out of the Town Forum.

Ron Storkey agreed it was a national matter and he had also felt uncomfortable about the motion. However, he would be pleased for Peter to talk about the local issues and the affects on Bexhill. It was an important subject, but he felt it would be wrong to pass this motion.

Peter Sinnett was given an opportunity to put his point across to members advising that it was an extremely complicated issue, but that he did not consider it himself to be political and the issue was concerning the service being provided at present. He went on to outline the proposals to privatise Royal Mail and gave some background detail on the Hooper Report of 2008, which was an independent review of the postal service.

Mr Sinnett summarised that Royal Mail had been making a profit over the last 4 years, contrary to that of private companies providing a similar service, but privatising Royal Mail would lead to an unrecognisable service compared to now with deliveries potentially being cut to just 3 days a week. Hooper recommended Royal Mail be privatised but that the Government should retain the £800 billion debt. It was a serious issue and one which he felt demanded attention.

Members maintained that they were seriously concerned with the motion being placed on the agenda.

Nick Hollington proposed that the motion be withdrawn as unsuitable for the Town Forum and this was carried on a show of hands.

The Vice-Chairman thanked Peter Sinnett for bringing this matter to the attention of the Forum.

RESOLVED: That no vote be taken on the motion.

PAUL PLIM IN THE CHAIR

TF584. PRESENTATION AND QUESTION TIME PANEL

Local Government Finance

Robin Vennard, Head of Finance and Malcolm Johnston, Director of Resources, Rother District Council, gave a presentation on local authority finances.

Members were advised that the Council’s turnover was over £200 million pounds each year and within that amount Housing and Council Tax Benefit was the biggest single area of spend at just over £36 million pounds per year.

Rother District Council (RDC) was the collecting agent for East Sussex County Council (ESCC) (75%), East Sussex Fire Authority (5%), Sussex Police Authority (9%) with the remaining 11% going to Rother. The money was spent on a huge range of services from abandoned vehicles right through to waste management.

The difference between revenue and capital budgets was explained. Revenue spend was paid for from Council Tax, revenue grants, interest earnings, fees, charges and rents. Capital spend equated to spending on something that lasted for more than one year but that also had substantial value, i.e. more than £10,000 including land, buildings, equipment and computer software. The rules governing local authority finance meant that revenue money could be used for capital items, however, capital money could not be used to pay for revenue items. The Council had not borrowed any capital money since 2003.

The new coalition Government had announced their intention to make radical cuts, which would have an immense effect on Local Government. The intent was to re-distribute power away from the central state to local communities, giving power straight to local people – the “Big Society”. However, building the “Big Society” was a matter of actively helping and encouraging people to take responsibility for their own actions and services that were required.

Local authorities were being told that they would play a new role, with there being less reliance on the state and more on the individual. The results of this would see a reduced grant income due to the state of public finances, reduced returns from investment income and a reduced income from fee charging services due to poor economic conditions and contract costs. The end result would definitely be a change in the way local authorities worked.

Speculation had been made on a reduction in council budgets between 25% and 40% over the next 4 years, but the outcome of the cuts might not be known for some time. The spending review was due on 25 October 2010, however, the Council may not have final details of the actual grant for next year until December.

The Director of Resources gave an assurance that RDC would manage the changes. It was going to be a challenging time for the Council because the expectation was that they would have to steer people towards helping themselves. It was important for people to know that the council would, however, be there for those who needed help.

RESOLVED: That the presentation be noted.

Question Time Panel

The Chairman welcomed the RDC elected Members of the Panel to the Forum, namely, Councillor Carl Maynard, Leader of the Council, Councillor Robin Patten, Deputy Leader, Councillor Mrs Joy Hughes, representing Bexhill Central Ward and Councillor Mrs Sue Prochak, Leader of the Liberal Democrats. Each Member of the Panel was asked for their views on each question. The formal response was as follows:

Question No. 1 submitted by Marcus Klugman

“To save costs, could the current ‘Next Wave’ Improvement works be scaled down to a minimum? For example, things like shelters, cancelled. These are expensive and of little benefit. Old shelters cost money to clean and become the habitat of drunks and gangs of yobs. By not having them you save the cost of erection and maintenance. If anyone wants to shelter they could use the De La Warr, a car or a beach hut”.

Response

The Next Wave scheme has been debated and discussed at length and the importance of shelters has been repeated on numerous occasions, including at the Bexhill Town Forum.

Question No. 2 submitted by Tom Cullen

“How can we, as residents, be reassured that the services in the district will remain the same quality with less money and staff to provide them?”

Response

You raise a very interesting and relevant point. At the heart of the issue is the fact that services cannot be delivered in the same way because as you rightly say there will be less resource available to deliver them. The Government’s approach is that of the ‘big society’ where people and communities are encouraged to take more responsibility on themselves. The role of Government, local and national, will be to help residents and businesses achieve this rather than always directly providing it. This is not about reducing the quality of service but instead about helping people to help themselves.

Question No. 3 submitted by Roger Gillett

“Will there be increases in hire charges, i.e. allotments, sports facilities, etc?”